Saturday, June 10, 2006

RE: al-Zarqawi, from Vernsen...

If John Murtha had had his way; if the NY Times and all of the leftwing bloggers had succeeded in undermining the war effort by weakening public support for the Iraqi Operation by just a few more percentage points; if Air America and the increasingly nutty Hollywood politicos had been successful in launching just a few more red herring stories about how this war was being run by paramilitary vigilantes on oil company payrolls; al-Zarqawi would not be dead today or tomorrow. He would be in Iraq or somewhere else in the world, orchestrating death and destruction. This is a man who killed children on school buses, beheaded civilians as a public spectacle and made every effort to incite civil war.

Our troops would be home, yes. Happy? Of course they would be happy to be home with their families, but what about the last 3 years they gave up to pursue a goal, a goal that for some period of each soldier's life was important enough to miss a five year old daughter's birthday, a family Christmas or perhaps a milestone wedding anniversary. A Marine commander, who happens to be a relative of mine said "our goal is to be the last Americans in Iraq" and that means doing the job the right way, making the Iraqi government and people our long-term ally. There is a heartfelt commitment to making this work and they have made progress each day since the "insurgency" began.

This is a professional, volunteer fighting force and no matter how many times the media decide to run Abu Ghraib or Haditha stories, our men and women in uniform do care a great deal about getting the right Iraqis into power and ensuring long-term security for the civilian population. Not one single American who stands for peace and justice can stomach the things that a handful of our troops may have done that are in violation of the Marine Honor Code or our own military justice system. But we do understand that war is hell. And that expeditionary forces performing police duties and subjected to roadside bombs and unyielding assymetrical warfare are far more likely to cross that dreadful line where the enemy becomes everyone who isn't a part of your own fighting unit.

There is so much we still don't know about that particular incident in Haditha, but it is already being used as an indictment of Bush's decision to go into Iraq.

Anyone who watched CNN on the day al-Zarqawi's death was reported, who also happens to see left leaning media bias for what it is, saw that a pall was hanging over the newsroom that day. A good day for George W. Bush is a bad day for anyone on the left. Good news from Iraq will be supressed again by the weekend and all of our Marines will be on trial, not just the few unproud who may have lost control of themselves on the ground.

Some Democrats would have left before we got Zarqawi, others before we got Saddam, but enough of them voted to approve the use of force, that they can't really say we wouldn't have been there in the first place. There is an unwritten immunity agreement between a majority of the press and the left that allows Democrats to change positions without being questioned. Still, no matter how many times John Kerry, Ted Kennedy or others switch their views, the underlying culture is always a culture of defeat and Monday-morning quarterbacking.

Thankfully, this culture of defeat hasn't taken control of the U.S. Military. Let's defeat those whose vision is retreat and appeasement again in November and make sure that we continue to eliminate monsters like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from the face of the earth.

10 comments:

squawpeak said...

Thanks for this post Vernsen, it's always good to get accounts from our servicemen. Their voices seem underreported in the national discussion about how Iraq is progressing.

gregrandgar said...

A guy realizes that smoking will kill him with cancer but won't stop because he has so many years invested in it. A girl realizes unprotected sex may cause her to contract aids but she won't use a condom because it gets in the way of the spontaineous fun. A country goes to war over false accusations about the threat of the enemy but when no threat is found after thousands have been killed, the war is continued because we've already spent so many years killing. This is your Reason? Anyone?

gregrandgar said...

Since when is it cowardice to admit one was wrong. Since when is it bravery to stay the course knowing one was wrong. The righteous certainty of the right wing flaps so hard and unrelentingly about the left wing's ability to respond to new evidence controdictory to that certainty that the country is flying in impotent circles, full steam ahead. Perhaps it's a good thing the media is there to slow things down, being liberal pussies according to the righteous right, and war mongers according to the leaving left.

squawpeak said...

gregrandgar, the piece you comment on never mentions "cowardice", though it would be appropriate to some on the left.

I'm familiar with many on the right who are readily able to admit that, regarding the execution of the war, there have been missteps.

We will likely need to agree to disagree if your charge is that going to Iraq was wrong.

The case for going is based on the following FACTS - (bring your A-game with sourcing for any claims that these points are false).
1. We were attacked by terrorists on 9/11/2001 BEFORE invading either Afghanistan or Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein's regime was funding suicide bombers AND harboring terrorists within Iraq PRIOR TO the U.S. invasion.
3. Saddam Hussein flouted over a dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions, including 1441 which set "serious consequences" (understood by all on the UNSC as military action)as the price of non-compliance.
4. As part of the non-compliance, Hussein went to great lengths to obfuscate the state of his WMD programs, and regularly delayed both UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspectors' access to sites - needed to positively verify that the WMD's HE HAD LISTED were indeed destroyed.

Based on that list of facts, Iraq harbored terrorists, funded terrorists, was in blatant violation of international law - ALL PRIOR TO U.S. military intervention. The U.S. was the only country with the guts to enforce the international community's resolutions.

How do you square that with your claim that going into Iraq was a mistake?

gregrandgar said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
gregrandgar said...

squawpeak, excuse the use of cowardice, it's just the metaphoric implication I got from the phrase "culture of defeat"
As to your four points; the last three wouldn't justify any invasion of Iraq without the assumption that the first point is true. When compared to the report of the 911 commission, chaired and staffed by Bush crones, most of whom should have disqualified themselves for conflict of interest, evidence that the whole disaster was an inside job is overwhelming; from the easily observable fact that buildings 1, 2 and 7 all collapsed at the rate of free fall, possible only with controlled demolition, to the fact they are the only three steel buildings in history to ever collapse due to fire. Instead of putting our enrgy into self righteous vengence based on claims that identities of all the perpetrators were established in less that 24 hours we should be investigating why there has yet to be found a trace of any of parts of any of the four airplanes reputed to be hijacked and crashed. I refer you to http://loosechange.com for just one of many justifiably skeptical investigations

squawpeak said...

Gregrandgar, I refer you to http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/pentagoncrash.htm to show that plane parts were indeed found at the attack sites, eyewitnesses saw those airplanes strike, and that anything you are reading that turns a blind eye to this is sourced right out of moonbat territory.

From the link above, in part, "Eyewitnesses to the crash as well as video from a security camera at the Pentagon show that the plane struck at ground level. Considering the description of the strength of the building (above), it is not surprising that the weaker appendages of the plane such as the tail and the wings would not have had as much of an impact as the main body."

A couple of points to ponder. The identities of the hijackers were established quickly because they were listed on the passenger lists. They didn't sneak on in luggage, they purchased tickets.

As for the "rate of free fall". If a building is standing still; is hit by an airliner full of jet fuel, and collapses, should it fall faster than free-fall? Why? Gravity on planet earth remains constant - for purposes of our discussion- so when a building falls, it will do so at a known, predictable rate, no matter the cause UNLESS something traveling faster than terminal velocity strikes the building from above & drives it downward faster than gravity alone can pull it. Is this what your post is implying?

It stands to reason that the fire caused by two wing-fulls of jet fuel would create a much hotter fire than has been seen in past steel-frame structure fires (in your research on other fires in steel-frame buildings, were those fires also fueled by two wingfulls of jet fuel?)if not, the comparison is not appropriate.

Further refutation of your assertion that all the plane parts were missing...consider Flight 93. Todd Beamer & other passengers spoke with their loved ones via cell phone, and diverted the plane that crashed outside Shanksvill, PA. That plane's pieces were found too.

In the Pentagon crash site particularly, DNA of the passengers was recovered and verified.

We welcome comments & opinion, but please reserve conspiracy theory with not one rizome rooted in the soil of truth for another blog.

usarottweiler said...

Greganger or Todd, whichever you are at the moment, how does a moonbat such as you are gain enough altitude to fly on one of your ridiculously silly rants with all of that tin foil duct taped to your noggin?

Last I checked, the name of this blog was Reason Anyone?, not Peyote Anyone? I suspect perhaps you are merely trolling for comments at that barren, silly thingy of yours.

To all today (except you, Yak), thank you for all that you do to contribute to and protect the freedoms we enjoy in this great country.

230 years!

Don’t burn your dadgum fingers on those sparklers.

doggie

gregrandgar said...

Squawpeak and USARottweiler, Okay guys, I went to your referenced website (a desparate defense of the Kean report) but I doubt if you have been to the loose change site I referred to or there would not be the confusion you had understanding what I meant by free fall.
Your mentioning the hijackers names being on the passenger list reminds me that none of the hijackers were ever listed among the bodies found, and nine of them have been found alive.
I guess I'm wasting my sincere efforts to get to the realities of the event with people who can accuse theorys that challenge the "Official" line of having "not one rizome rooted in the soil of truth" without ever having watched the movie to which I refer. I am not saying I know the truth, but the official version certainly leaves more doubts than this movie. And by the way, Rotweiler, your calling anything different than your opinion a silly rant by a moonbat wrapped in duct tape sounds like your sense of freedom is a bit afraid of the free speech part, is that what you call protecting your freedoms?

fangers said...

It was all a hoax? omg!!! so... who was behind it? Who is responsible? And why hasn't the media picked up on this in the last five years and shown just how evil this President Bush really is?

Simple...

Because there isn't a shred of credible evidence...

If there are nine of these hijackers still alive, I guarantee that the NY Times would have a dozen staff members working 100 hours a week to find them and get pictures, statements, etc...

I understand completely about the "free fall", and I also understand the physics that make it possible.

I also understand that to have the scenario you envision in your free fall, the WHOLE building would have come down as a unit, and crumbled from the lower floors up, not crumbled from the top the way that it actually did.

As far as Iraq, I remember when the US took the attitude after WWII of "never again" will we let a dictator commit genocide. Well, Hussein was using WMD to commit genocide on the kurds. He had them, there was no evidence he got rid of them, so we did what the UN said we could do, and got rid of him.

Now, every time that a WMD shows up in Iraq, the left says, "But it's not THE WMD that you said was there!"

I wish there weren't Americans dying in Iraq, but I'm elated that we don't have Americans dying to suicide bombs here in the US.

The left loves to call the world more dangerous? well, I say that the only reason they can call the world more dangerous is because of the way they have undermined the US military at every turn, and tried to JUSTIFY the actions of our enemies.

If nothing else, than remember this....

War (in the name of Jihad) was proclaimed by Iran, Iraq, Syria and various other countries AGAINST the US for supporting our friends in Israel.

These same enemies have vowed to attack unceasingly the "great satan" (that's the US) until we give up supporting Israel. They have also vowed to wipe Israel and all Jews off the face of the earth.

Or maybe....

Since we don't have the guts anymore...

We should simply, give up, and let them sort out their own problems, even at the cost of finishing what Hitler started 65+ years ago...